Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

427 comments

Fuck it! (-1)

1234567890zxcvbnm (548451) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456038)

Better be first post.

Things To Do Today (-1)

Things To Do Today (576443) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456063)

1. Fuck a fat woman

2. Watch it wiggle, see it jiggle

Re:Fuck it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456169)

NO JAM!

Re:Fuck it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456180)

kuy 555

hmmm (-1, Flamebait)

c8to (442188) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456039)

down with cell phones

Huh ? (0, Troll)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456040)

Jammer ? Are you nuts ?

Re:Huh ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456240)

Wouldn't a jammer have higher power than the cell phone/cell site ? Would the lost of signals causes the cell phone to pump even higher higher transmitter power ?

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456041)

suck it down, suck it all down biznatches

wow (0, Troll)

Lag Master (569259) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456045)

i can feel my skin melting already.... oh well.....

You can help to 'educate' users here.. (1)

popeydotcom (114724) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456047)

Cilck on this: ShutYourPhoneUp.com [shutyourphoneup.com] , then choose "Email a mobile phone abuser"..

STILL FUCK YOU (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456049)

I'm still fuckin' all of you. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCKESR! Do I need to get some? Sure. Do you??? Probably even more than I do. FUCK YOU.

An ESR booty call? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456182)

Okay, okay, I understand the gist of what you are saying. What I'm puzzled by is how you threw in the initials "ESR" into one of your FUCKs. Was this a Freudian slip? Do you really mean to say that you want to fuck Eric S. Raymond in his tucchus?

ECM (4, Insightful)

shaldannon (752) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456051)

Would you really want someone jamming *your* important calls? I wouldn't, and turnabout is definitely fair play. Besides which, jamming someone's phone is a DoS. Most people get rather upset over that sort of thing...

If you don't like cell phones, then go find somewhere that doesn't have them.

shove yer stupid cell phone up your ass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456057)

see above

Re:ECM (2, Interesting)

fallacy (302261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456081)

If you don't like cell phones, then go find somewhere that doesn't have them.

Given the current popularity of mobile phones, you'd be hard pushed to find a "phone free zone".

Besides, the argument (and I suppose it's exactly that at the moment until we get solid uniform proof) is that it's damaging to one's health. Using that analogy, would you tell non-smokers to find a smoke-free zone or put up & shut up?

Besides, mobile phones are not limited to RF poisoning: something which hasn't been mentioned is the damage to train users' ear drums when the entire carriage errupts in a shouting match of "ARE YOU STILL THERE? HELLO? HELLO?..." when the train goes through a tunnel...

A cultural problem, not a technological problem (2, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456127)

that it's damaging to one's health

I'm not an RF expert but I am a physicist. As far as I know radiation can damage your cells in two ways:

a) Direct heating
b) Ionization

The latter one is easy to dismiss by elementary physics. Unlike in the gamma radiation, the photons of the cellphone microwave radiation simply don't carry enough energy to damage the DNA strands. Hell, microwaves pack less punch per photon than the infrared (heat) radiation!

The heating argument is more difficult to deal with. In general, the power of the RF field is again far too weak to heat your brain significantly (=more than the temperature varies naturally). However, if several fields overlap in a certain way (a standing wave forms inside your skull), then I guess there might be a possibility for an interference "hotspot" to form. Again I think this is very unlikely. Even a small head movement or the movement of the radiation source will change the geometry and thus the interference inside your head.

Quite frankly I am surprised by the anti-cellphone mentality in this thread. Most of it seems to come from experiences with annoying cellphone users. However, that's not a problem with the cellphones. That's a cultural problem. People simply have not learnt the proper etiquette yet.

Where I live the cellphones have practically replaced the landline phones. If the adaptation of the cellphones continues at this rate, there will soon be a one cellphone per citizen -- and that includes the minors. When the use is this widespread, the people in general know how to switch their phones to silent mode for meetings, movies and concerts. Having your cellphone ring, for instance, in the middle of a movie is socially extremely bad behaviour. If you start talking on your phone in the theatre, you will get thrown out -- either by the theatre staff or by the rest of the audience.

Re:A cultural problem, not a technological problem (1)

fallacy (302261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456231)

I'm not an RF expert but I am a physicist...[snip informative discussion]

And this is what we need - good, clear, objectional investigations into the mobile-phone's-gonna-kill-ya phenomenon by people other than those hired to carry out such research who are being "funded" by either the mobile phone companies themselves, or by the "mobile phone haters".

Unfortunately, we're currently in a situation where for each anti-mobile report, there's a pro-mobile report quickly following it up from the mobile companies (and vice-versa). As a result, neither types of reports hold much validity and the general public thus cannot decide which to believe on a truly scientific/honest level

I agree with your sentiments on the cultural problems - I personally find it damn annoying when a phone goes off in a supposedly "off" area (cinema etc). Mind you, I believe that ALL phones should be set to silent/vibrate by default. The problem is that no amount of "education" gets certain people to utilising some degree of courtesy when it comes to silencing their phones - people tend to do what they want despite any requests or rules (take speeding, "do not step on the grass" etc as examples)

Disclaimer: I own and use a mobile phone. I keep it in my shirt pocket and it's on vibrate/silent 95% of the time.

Re:ECM (0, Troll)

artg (24127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456135)

What important calls ?

I've survived perfectly happily for many years before the invention of mobile phones - why on earth should they suddenly become essential ?

If I've got an 'important' call to make (once a year ?) I can use a payphone.

Re:ECM (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456183)

What important calls ?

Like 911 (or 112 in Europe)?

why on earth should they suddenly become essential?

Who said anything about essential? Cellphones are simply damn convenient.

If I am expecting a call, I don't have to babysit my landline phone but can do something useful somewhere else instead. If I don't want to be disturbed at a certain time, I can switch my cellphone off or to silent and all the calls are automatically forwarded to the cellphone's answering machine. Text messaging is an excellent way for communicating non-urgent messages.

Simply put: cellphones give you more freedom.

Re:ECM (3, Interesting)

markbthomas (123470) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456187)

We lived for thousands of years without:

  • Brick Houses
  • Electric lights
  • Cookers
  • Central Heating
  • Motor Vehicles
  • A Postal Service
  • Telephones
  • Computers

Why on earth should they suddenly become essential?

The other day my friend called me on my mobile phone, from his mobile phone, because he'd just had an accident on his bike. I was able to call another friend (on their mobile phone) to arrange a car to go and get him.

You missed the point... (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456227)

The point wasn't jamming calls for fun or to have a quiet area. The point was that having many people in a train car using their phones at the same time, can raise RF radiation to dangerous levels. Or so the researcher claims; personally I think his calculations a rather over-simplified. Further tests (i.e. additional research grants) are needed!

Yeah, that'll help (5, Insightful)

koreth (409849) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456055)

Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer.

Reduce your exposure to RF emissions by carrying around a powerful RF transmitter! Sure, that'll do the trick.

Re:Yeah, that'll help (5, Insightful)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456101)

In addition to that, all cellphones will start transmitting at full power when they cannot reach the base station. Sounds like jamming is a really bad idea indeed.

Re:Yeah, that'll help (2)

q-soe (466472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456161)

Not to mention the fact they are illegal in a number of countries

What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456162)

We are talking about the words of a /. editor here. Not exactly the most thoughtful group.

Re:Yeah, that'll help (2, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456171)

From the little I know about GSM jamming devices, jammers do not jam by simply blanketing the GSM band with a very powerful signal. Instead they use a low-powered signal to spoil the control link transmission from the base stations to the GSM handsets, so that the GSM will not be able to set up a call connection. The phone will continue to try and connect to a base station, using short bursts of emission at high power, but on average these bursts are of much less power than an ongoing call, especially in a train (shielding cage, and often far from base stations).

Here [computex.com.tw] are some specs and details of such a jamming device.

So the solution is... (1)

hokanomono (530164) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456244)

prohibiting the use of "devices that have an antenna" in trains same as in airplanes. I saw some japanese trains where the use of mobile phones was prohibited. Let's do some lobbying for it all over the world. It works against smoking so why not against radiating.

Hello - Yeah, I'm on the train... (2, Funny)

maharg (182366) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456058)

I'd be more worried about the cumulative effect of loads of commuters repeating the mantra..

hmm (1)

Graspee_Leemoor (302316) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456064)

??

The article is talking about microwave EMF, not RF, and a jammer wouldn't help, because no-one would know so they would all still be trying to use their devices anyway- hence microwave radiation in carriages...

graspee

nuclear bomb?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456084)

Whats really needed is a giant electromagnetic pulse which would destroy the electronics in the phone. Wow! what a place it would be without all the rude assholes who constantly babble around, talking ridiculously loudly, acting important without merit, trying vainly to impress others. What they really need to realize is that no one cares what the hell their talking about.

Re:nuclear bomb?? (0, Troll)

psychofox (92356) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456116)

Presumably you're oblivious to the fact that this would likely render you unable to peruse Slashdot?

Re:hmm (4, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456121)

Microwave is RF.....

Microwave is simply an indication for the wavelength of a certain type of RF.
Your normal microwave oven works by emitting an RF signal at 2.45GHz

Jeroen

Re:hmm (0, Troll)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456173)

*sigh* but this is Slashdot, where one can be revered for posting such a fundamentally flawed comment without fear of ridicule.

I'm also thinking of creating an account called 'TheNotAllMicrowavesHeatWaterUpNazi" to post to any thread about mobile phones, but I'm not sure if a) the name is too long, or b) I can be arsed.

don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (1)

BOFH_org (571193) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456065)

we happen to know that electromagnetic radiation isn't very good for your health.
that's why a microwave oven has a lot of shielding, just to protect those bags of polluted water (yes, humans)
the risk of celluar phones is never publicly investigated on a large scale 'cause that's not what nokia, siemens and motorola make money with.
they don't care about your health; they're only in to it for the profit.
just don't tell me it suprises you

have a nice day
BOFH_org

Re:don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (1)

thannine (576719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456088)

I'm not surprised at the news. Here in Europe this has been in the news for a couple of years, studies have been saying it causes cancer, others saying it won't. The fact is, there ARE studies, already published and also ongoing. So don't act like this is some big conspiracy to hush up then whole thing.

Re:don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (1)

BOFH_org (571193) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456120)

yeah sure, studies enough...
and how much are made available for the general public (as in _readable articles with a sound conclusion) ?
in europe there have been studies indeed. and what imapct did they have ? none...
some scientists write an article about cellphones being hazardous for your health, and the next day, you'll find *another* article which says it isn't that bad...
also in europe people think it's perfectly save to even give your children these devices.
conspiracy or not, closing your eyes is a much worse behaviour.

bofh_org

Re:don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (3, Insightful)

radish (98371) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456164)

So your view is that if a study is carried out and it doesn't agree with your uninformed preconceptions, then that study is worthless?

The studies are all public, and the results are frequently published on the TV news and in papers over here. It couldn't be any more open, seeing as the vast majority of the population have mobiles it's in everyone's interest. The fact is there hasn't been any real conclusion one way or the other yet, but that's not because of a cover up or because of people "closing their eyes", it's because science doesn't know whether it's a risk yet or not.

So it comes down to personal choice - I for one and happy to take the (slight, IMHO) risk that there may be health problems in exchange for the convenience. If you don't think that's a risk worth taking, don't use a phone. Just make sure you live in an oxygen tent to avoid pollution, don't drive, don't take drugs, drink or smoke, and avoid eating bread or cakes. All those things have been PROVEN to cause health problems, but people still do them :)

Re:don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456172)

and how much are made available for the general public (as in _readable articles with a sound conclusion) ?

What the general public does not understand that there really never is "a sound conclusion" in science. Whenever us scientists talk about conclusions, we mean "These are our conclusions given the present evidence".

also in europe people think it's perfectly save to even give your children these devices.

Yeah, so.

At present there is no hard, concrete evidence that would suggest that the cellphone radiation is harmful. This is backed by common sense physics (see my previous post).

Re:don't tell me you're suprised with this news ! (2, Informative)

raitiovaunu (140760) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456117)

we happen to know that electromagnetic radiation isn't very good for your health.


"We"?
Excessive amounts of water is not good for your health, neither is a) eating too much organic food b) eating too much genetically modified food c) eating "normal" food d) ... - and so on.

Microwave oven's output is typically from 600 W upwards. Are you really comparing this to hundreds of milliwatts?

The "risk" of cellular phones has been and is being investigated - large scale and publicly. Check your sources. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for those with radiation phobia, none of the scientific studies have linked cell phones to cancer or other serious health problems.

Microwave radiation has been shown to increase tissue temperature slightly. According to one study it also changes protein production in human cells

What FUD (3)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456160)

Sure there are dangers with microwaves, however as with all things, it comes down to dosage. Strong signals - bad. Weak signals - less bad OR no effect OR benificial. So what is it?

There is an awful lot of research into the effects of mobile phones (certainly here in Europe) as it is such a big issue and people are worried. However, so far no effects have been shown apart from usage of phones actually improving your short term memory by a small amount.

Still worried? Well here is a parallel example. Find yourself a large magnifying glass and stand underneath it in bright sunlight. You will be cooked. Does this mean that sunlight is dangerous? Well yes if its bright sunlight (sunburn / cancer etc). However at low levels it is good for you. Your body needs sunlight to produce vitamin D, without it you get rickets etc.

So will mobile phones kill you? The answer to that is a definite Yes. Many people have already died directly caused by mobile phones. How? Well by walking out in front of cars whilst talking, driving in walls whilst using them etc. Compared to this, this risk of getting cancer or other ill through mobile phone usage is tiny. Not nil, this can't be proved, but tiny.

Looks like a simulation (4, Insightful)

ishark (245915) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456067)

The article looks like it's just a simulation of what may happen (with some microwave propagation tool), it would be more interesting to perform a measurement (I'm sure that the railways can "lend" a wagon for one day to the experimentalists) and really see what's going on...
It could be much less serious (or much more....).

Jammers are illegal over here (2)

rutger21 (132630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456069)

over here in The Netherlands, mobile phone jammers are illegal. I think this is not too strange, considering the millions payed for GSM frequencies, and the billions payed for UMTS frequencies. No one except the license holder of these frequencies may broadcast on them.

what a good socialist I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456094)

Over here we lick the boots of our government and let them tell us how we have to run our airwaves. ......

oh, so do we...

Re:Jammers are illegal over here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456144)

Spread-spectrum phones (AKA 3G) can't be jammed: it's an inherant feature that (a) any signal not keyed to their HF code simply appears as noise (hence there is no hard limit to the number of users) and (b) Their power control goes up to something ridiculous, in the order of 5W RF output (yes, you can transmit to the moon with that) and the OQPSKeying means that you'll need a lot more power than the phone's signal to stop it working.

Even GSM phones use far too much power, hence the reason you can make a phone call from inside a lift (double-shielded metal box in a concrete shaft) hence most people would be plenty pissed off to be in a lift with someone's phone switched on. (similar principle to a microwave oven, take a HF transmitter, put it in a metal box, and let everything reflect around inside)

(I do have a username, but only Galeon knows it and i'm using IE)

I can see it now... (1)

dtdns (559328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456070)

Some forms of transportation already have "designated smoking areas" .. next we'll have "designated cell-phone areas" as to not mutate the innocent people around them (similar to second-hand smoke).

On another note, I would love to see restaurants take a stand on phone usage within their walls. At least force people to turn off the ringers and use vibrate instead.

Re:I can see it now... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456099)

This actually happens, right now, on Virgin Trains in the UK.

Well, in actual fact, the opposite happens; there are desgnated areas for those who don't want to use phones ;)

Re:I can see it now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456205)

On another note, I would love to see restaurants take a stand on phone usage within their walls. At least force people to turn off the ringers and use vibrate instead.

Here in San Francisco there are many restaurants which have and enforce no cellphone policies. Even if it doesn't ring you can't use it. I love it. Respectful people take the damn things outside to use them anyway.

Re:I can see it now... (1)

tschild (232450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456220)

In the newest high-speed (ICE) trains of Deutsche Bahn [www.bahn.de] there are both no-mobile-phone-use carriages (enforcement not by jammers but by fellow passengers) and carriages with repeaters for mobile phone signals.

To have repeaters is a good idea IMO as this allows the mobile phones to reduce their transmitting power.

BTW I wonder if the Japanese trains also have metal vapour coated windows. It used to be difficult to get a mobile connection from an ICE train. If I recollect correctly Deutsche Bahn at first replaced the windows on some cars, before they went for repeaters.

Re:I can see it now... (2, Interesting)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456232)

All SNCF trains here in France have cute little stickers in the passenger compartments with a sleeping cell phone. Out near the bathrooms and the luggage compartment they have similar stickers with a happy smiling cell phone.

Lots of movie theaters, concert venues, etc. tell you to extinguish your portable (that's a literal translation anyway :) before entering the area as well.

cell phone jammer? no thanks... (4, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456076)

"Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer."

No thanks, my cell phone came with a free jammer...it's called AT&T wireless service ;-)

Fight fire with fire. Ridiculous ! (1, Redundant)

forged (206127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456077)

I'm probably the 100th to notice this, but....

  • [...] RF you may be getting from all those cell phones people around you are using.
    Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer."

So essentially, transmit even more microwaves to jam people transmitting microwaves!!!

To prevent the problem in the first place, there should be a regulation body disallowing use of cellpones in trains, much like airlines regulation. Or a mechanism to defeat cell phone usage by blocking the range of frequencies, preventing people to make calls.

Re:Fight fire with fire. Ridiculous ! (1)

psychofox (92356) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456114)

Or a mechanism to defeat cell phone usage by blocking the range of frequencies, preventing people to make calls.

Err... thats what a cell phone jammer is!

Re:Fight fire with fire. Ridiculous ! (2)

forged (206127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456154)

Nope. A jammer will *emit* RF, a blocking device (farraday cage for instance) would passively block RF, therefore disable cellphones in a "cleaner" way..

Re:Fight fire with fire. Ridiculous ! (2)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456118)

If everyone in a train fires up their mobiles at once then yeah, there'll be a measurable increase in microwave radiation. This MIGHT cause health problems. If the train company wants to protect itself from getting sued (a la tobacco companies) down the track (geddit) it should put in shielding to stop phones working in all but one area on each train - so people who want to phone can go there.

This would stop me listening to 'IM ON THE TRAIN, NAH, ITS GOING TO BE LATE, FUCKING RAILTRACK, HOWS NANCY? SHIIIIIT, TELL HER I'LL BE THERE SOON' for 8 hours a day on my way to work!

YEAH RIGHT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456078)

I remember when they said cell phones gave you brain tumors! BULLSHIT! Now they say that a train full of cellphones exceeds the recommended electromagnetic fields one should experience. WELL WHY WOULD A COMPANY WANT ITS CUSTOMERS DEAD? I mean come on, they need you around to subscribe to thier service. Next thing you'll tell me is that smoking is bad for your health. BAH!

Who gets the last laugh? (5, Funny)

geoffsmith (161376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456079)

While everyone else is getting brain cancer, I've been wearing my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie [zapatopi.net] for years.

Just a myriad of uses for these things...

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]

Cellular defence strategies (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456085)

Get your multi frequency digital cell phone jammer here [cguard.com] , or just skip the sissy stuff and build a disruptor [com.com] .

So what? (1)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456087)

Just because the calculation of the RF is above regulations, does that mean that everyone who rides the subway is going to die of cancer or get baked by intense rays?

It would have been nice if the article mentioned what would happen if a human being was exposed to an excessive amount radiation from God knows how many cell phone users in a crowded place surrounded by metal walls.

Re:So what? (2)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456136)

It would have been nice if the article mentioned what would happen if a human being was exposed to an excessive amount radiation from God knows how many cell phone users in a crowded place surrounded by metal walls.

What you are describing is a microwave oven. The water in your head is going to get heated and thus your brain tissue is going to get boiled slowly (very slowly though)

Jeroen

really? (2)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456089)

"Tsuyoshi Hondou, a physicist from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, who is currently working at the Curie Institute in Paris, says Japanese commuter trains are often packed with people surfing the web on their mobile phones."

Ok, I am gonna ask a naive question here. I live in Hotlanta (or Atlanta, but if you have been here you know what I mean) and I have taken good ole MARTA enough. However, I have not seen anyone using a cellphone to surf the web. (Or maybe there is some new method of websurfing by putting it to your ear that I don't know about) I think this is because of two reasons....

1) have a fancy phone, you increase your chance of getting jacked, and MARTA ain't the safest rail system.

2) just not big in the southern US.

Anyone care to prove or disprove my thoughts? We all know cell phone advances occur at a much higher rate in EU, so is this a legitimate concern? Seems to me we got too many other things to worry about other than a stupid cell phone, but that's just my opinion.

Re:really? (2)

wfberg (24378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456125)

"Tsuyoshi Hondou, a physicist from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, who is currently working at the Curie Institute in Paris, says Japanese commuter trains are often packed with people surfing the web on their mobile phones."

Ok, I am gonna ask a naive question here. I live in Hotlanta (or Atlanta, but if you have been here you know what I mean) and I have taken good ole MARTA enough. However, I have not seen anyone using a cellphone to surf the web. (Or maybe there is some new method of websurfing by putting it to your ear that I don't know about)

NTT Docomo (the Japanese PTT) offers a thing called "I-mode", basically stripped HTML 4 (cHTML) with GIF pictures only that can be viewed on phones with nifty color screens. I-mode has also been launched in The Netherlands, and I think in Germany as well (by KPN Mobile and E-Plus).

I-mode, unlike WAP 1.x, uses GPRS (packet service) by default, and handsets are required to display 256 colors. The mobile versions of TCP/IP and HTTP used (yes, I know, mobile versions, why change a winning team?) in current I-mode are the same as in WAP 2.0 though. The main difference then is in the markup language (cHTML vs. WML) and the color thing, though the newer handsets do GPRS, color and WAP 2.0 (including WML).

Since neither WAP nor I-Mode use real HTML, these Japanese people aren't surfing 'the' web, but rather a subset. Of course it helps that not many Japanese actually have a desktop computer that is hooked up to the net (what with being a pretty rocky country, running cables isn't cheap).

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456126)

Who posted an article that isn't relevant to Atlanta? Sheesh, some people.

Re:really? (1)

Clovert Agent (87154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456148)

One word: i-mode [nttdocomo.co.jp]

It may disappoint you to hear it, but Japan is a good way ahead of many other markets (yes, even *gasp* Atlanta) when it comes to mobile data services.

Meanwhile.. (2, Interesting)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456091)

a slightly more intelligent person, having the same hypothesis, just went in and measured the fucking thing, rather than coming up with some bullshit math and explanations of how it /MIGHT/ happen. Where the hell is the proof? I don't buy it, that this guy came up with such great mathmatical proof and NEVER EVEN FUCKING TESTED IT.
Some nerdy slashdotter want to head out and measure it themselves while this jackhole is sitting there with a pencil? Please post your results.

Re:Meanwhile.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456168)

You have problems with pencil and paper eh ? btw... thats what Einstein used for E=mc^2 :)

Re:Meanwhile.. (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456234)

Einstein wasnt out to prove that it was raining without bothering to look out a window, that's what this guy is doing.

Stealth technology... (1)

pennsol (317791) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456106)

why don't they just use RF absorbant paint on the insides of the train.. seeing as it's not the phones that do the dammage it's the REFLECTION of the RF waves thats is putting it over the limits...

Microwaves (1)

KeelSpawn (575726) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456108)

What microwave actually does to you: Microwaves heat things up "inside-out", basically they heat the water molecues of the object. When the microwave is in contact with you (not good), all it really does is it heats up your tissues, and if your are exposed to microwaves long term, you would most likely get cancer. But cell phones haven't yet reached the point of really hurting you, but they might if there's a whole bunch, or when the technology gets more advanced. Same with cordless/wireless phones, (2 Ghz, 2.4Ghz, etc.), the Ghz resembles how strong the radiation is. The higher it is, the stronger. I once heard this news a couple years ago, this man who uses his cell phone a lot, and eventually he had a brain tumor that has a shape of a cell phone (creepy..)

Re:Microwaves (1)

psychofox (92356) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456140)

If your comment is supposed to be ironic, or funny. I'd give it +1:funny, but I think what it really deserves is -5:clueless.

A tumour in the shape of a cell phone? WHAT??? I guess its possible, but really... Are you going to draw any conclusion for the single time it (maybe) occured?

Furthermore, the power of a signal is unrelated to its frequency.

i.e. A 1 watt transmission at 1 Ghz will have as much of a heating effect as 1 watt at 2Ghz (assuming equal tissue absortion characteristics).

AFAIK, around the microwave range, higher frequencies have less of a heating effect on human tissue.

Re:Microwaves (2)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456147)

the Ghz resembles how strong the radiation is. The higher it is, the stronger.

Thats bullshit....
The frequency has nothing to do with power... There is one thing though: higher frequencies get absorbed better, but they also penetrate less. The peak (goog penetration and absorbtion) is at 2.45Ghz which is the working frequency of your microwave oven. Above or below that frequency it is far less effective.

Jeroen

Re:Microwaves (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456158)

once heard this news a couple years ago, this man who uses his cell phone a lot, and eventually he had a brain tumor that has a shape of a cell phone

Yeah, and I heard a story of a farmer who found a potato that looked exactly like Jesus. Creepy...

This is really nonsense. (5, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456110)

People are worried because of the word "microwave". A mobile phone cannot produce any great amount of RF heating, for a few simple reasons.

A microwave cooker uses a very high power magnetron (usually >500W), directed in a narrow, focused beam, into a resonant cavity (the oven itself) from a distance of around 6". Furthermore, the oven uses a specific frequency, much below which RF heating is much weaker, and you need a lot more power (somewhere around 2.45GHz).

Now, a mobile phone uses around 1 or 2 watts *peak*. In normal use, it won't go above 500mW rms, otherwise the batteries would last only a few minutes. Not only that, but the antenna is designed to spread the signal over a wide area.

Mobile phone cell towers are also pretty much safe - although they use a much higher power than phones (15W or so, IIRC) they tend to be stuck up on high poles, well away from people. Inverse Square Law, anyone?

Here in Scotland, we recently had a series of large protests about siting cell towers near schools. The protesters were mainly middle-class mothers, from supposedly posh parts of Glasgow. Damn near all of them had sunbed tans. I'd take my chances with a mobile phone cell tower before I'd risk skin cancer from a sunbed...

you are rationalizing (1, Flamebait)

j09824 (572485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456177)

Well, of course, a cell phone is no microwave. But your head isn't a potato either (actually, judging by your comments, maybe your head is, but mine isn't). It doesn't take a lot of heat to cause serious damage in some tissues, and RF can potentially cause lots of other problems at much lower intensities. Nobody knows what the long term effects of constant exposure to RF are. But we do know that there are clear, short-term, biologically measurable responses at normal cell phone strengths already.

Also, the 2.45GHz frequency is deliberately not the optimal frequency for absorption and heating of water, it's a tradeoff between heating and penetration (you don't just want to cook the surface of the food). I believe the optimal frequency is somewhere around 900MHz. Whatever it is, anything in the range from maybe 500MHz to maybe 3GHz is bad news: at some frequencies, it heats strongly but doesn't penetrate very deeply (risk of cararacts), at others, it heats less well but penetrates deeper (risk to your brain and organs).

The point of that article, too, is that many places where people use cell phones are cavities.

People used to think that radioactivity and X-rays were really nifty and harmless, but things turned out differently. Maybe we should learn from that and be more careful this time around.

Re:you are rationalizing (3, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456262)

Yeah, but radioactivity and X-rays are ionising radiation. Non-ionising isn't really as dangerous.

There's a much larger EM field set up by the traction motors. Why isn't anyone worried by that?

Re:This is really nonsense. (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456204)

A microwave cooker uses a very high power magnetron (usually >500W), directed in a narrow, focused beam, into a resonant cavity (the oven itself) from a distance of around 6". Furthermore, the oven uses a specific frequency, much below which RF heating is much weaker, and you need a lot more power (somewhere around 2.45GHz).

Just curious, will the electromagnetic wave generated by my Pentium 2.4GHz blow my ass when I sit near it? I'm pretty worrying about it....

Re:This is really nonsense. (1)

hokanomono (530164) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456235)

into a resonant cavity (the oven itself) from a distance of around 6"

In a cavity (like a train), the distance from the source matters much less. Depending on the shape of the cavity there will be some places with higher radiation and some with lower radiation, but generally, if the radiation cannot escape, it has to be absorbed by something.

Echo... (1)

00_NOP (559413) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456119)

Yes, I'm on the train
Yes, I'm on the train
Yes, I'm on the train

and on and on and on....

In other news... (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456129)


Radiation found to be harmful, largest Radiation source found to be the Sun, blow up the Sun advises Slashdot.

Scientists claim radiation can be use to kill cancer, carry more mobile phones advises Slashdot.

Living in City can lead to lung disease, move to the country advises Slashdot.

Living in country results in lower salaries, move to City advises Slashdot.

Car pollution causes Global warming, buy bigger cars advises Slashdot.

Is there a risk from this RF, yup, is there more of a risk from people driving while using a mobile than from this... oh boy yes. Is there a risk from Coal fired powerstations from radiation... oh wow yes.

Passive Mobile phone usage, Caligormia to legislate.

It seems to me (2, Interesting)

zurmikopa (460568) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456139)

that instead of doing all these calculations to determine what the amount of RF radiation might be that one might instead actually go on to one of these trains and take measurements?

jammer? that would do the opposite (0, Redundant)

YE (23647) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456142)

In the presence of a jamming signal cell phones around you would increase their output power in an attempt to hear their basestation. So all you'll achieve will be a increased drain on their batteries - like, they'll last 3.5 days instead of 4. Not to mention the radiation you'll be getting from the jammer itself.

Resistance is futile.

Idiotic (5, Informative)

Gromer (9058) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456152)

Why does everybody still take this stuff seriously? Read the article- all this study does is establish that you get exposed to more RF radiation in a crowded train car than you do in other places. The scary part only comes in when it brings up these "international guidelines" which such exposure may exceed. Who established these guidelines, and how? The article does not say anything beyond the name of the organization, but I note that its name makes it sound like an independent, non-governmental organization- so this could be effectively anybody smart enough to give themselves a clever-sounding name

The idea that RF transmissions will kill you or cause cancer has a long and ugly history of bad science concealed by calculated emotional appeals. It was basically started by a guy whose wife (who used a cell phone a lot) died of brain cancer, from which he concluded that cell phones cause cancer. Most of the "science" that has been done on this issue is basically the same idiotic reasoning dressed up in white lab coats. It is highly likely that the organization setting this 'standard' is in fact one of the lobbying groups associated with the anti-cell-phone movement.

Consider- radio waves are extremely low-energy- far below the threshold necessary to break molecular bonds, which is how genuine cancer-causing radiation works. Thus, if RF waves do cause cancer, the mechanism by which they do this is A. different than for other sorts of radiation, and B. totally unknown.

Plus, as has been pointed out a million times, a 'jammer' is a device which drowns out a signal by emitting a much more powerful signal of its own, not by magically making the other signal go away. If RF waves give you cancer, the jammer will give you cancer faster.

Yes you are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456255)

idiotic, that is. The idea that RF transmissions will kill you or cause cancer has a long and ugly history of bad science concealed by calculated emotional appeals. Yes and the history of tests proving the harmlessness of RF radiation is short and... oh, no, I mean nonexistent. People like you are the ones who go "Pollution from my car doesn't harm anything otherwise people would be dropping like flies." Usually it's better to prevent unknown damage than to say "We have no proof it's harmful because we haven't studied long term effects, so let's go ahead." This is especially true when it comes to things that harm not just the users but those people surrounding the users.

What about all that nasty magnetism? (1)

mikehunt (225807) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456153)

OK, so I'm getting lightly cooked by all the microwaves
flying around the train. What about the huge magnetic
fields caused by the motors and overhead lines?

And now the Swedes have found that fried potato
(chips, crisps etc) has worryingly high quantities
of acryamide!

Looking at the risk of dying in a car crash still
makes all these risks pale into insignificance.

Trains do this? (3, Funny)

Geek Boy (15178) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456157)

Sounds like all the more reason to use a car instead! That way we can justify building more roads!

uhm. (0)

HobbitGod42 (568144) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456174)

I hav ben using a sell fone 4 yearz nd it hasssnt effected me ate awl. me brain gets no damage frum my sell fone.

Oh well that was fun!

Come on people.. (0)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456175)

I'm a amateur radio operator and I can say that the field emissions from these phones is nothing to get worried about. These concerns reguarding RF exposure from celular phones are from people who are completely cluless. Most celular phones only have a ERP (effective radiated power) of only 300 milliwatts and only transmit when the user speaks thus saving battery power and only producing a duty cycle of 40% or so. The computer monitor you sit in front of radiates far more power, even the leakage around the door of you microwave oven is in the order of a few watts at 2.45GHz..

rm -r windows

Max watts is two? (2)

weave (48069) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456178)

Last I heard, and this was for analog cellular, the max watts was 3 watts for car phones and those huge phone bags that no one uses anymore, and handhelds was 600mw. And that is PEAK power. The cell tower will most often instruct phone to drop its output power depending on signal strength.

So where does the author get 2 watts from?

And what about digital, which is what most phones use now. Don't they operate at even lower power?

hot seat (1)

daedalus22 (449463) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456184)

Well, I suppose that a "noise cancellation" type of mechanism where an active out-of-phase "microwave" is generated to nullify the radiation could work.

And perhaps the shape of the carriage and the way that the the microwaves reflect off of its walls would create focal points in the train where the radiation is exceedingly high. Kind of gives "hot seat" a meaning.

i scoff! (1)

layingMantis (411804) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456190)

i'm not scared of some little damn cell phone. It aint' nothing that some chain smoking and heavy drinking won't fix.

Better design of jammer (2, Funny)

keithdowsett (260998) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456201)

OK - so let's get geeky about this. Why do we need to broadcast continuously to disrupt mobile phones. Why not listen for outgoing packets and emit a nice big rf chirp when the base station tries to handshake.

Benefits -

prevents users dialling out
prevents users accepting calls
low rf power requirements
reasonable battery life
difficult for law enforcement to track down

Disadvantages -

illegal
more difficult to design

Any final year electronics students looking for an interesting project??

Keith.

Re:Better design of jammer (2, Interesting)

artg (24127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456241)

There was a thread on sci.electronics on this a while ago - one suggestion was that a jammer should imitate a base station. Operating at low power, it would fail to complete the call negotiation. The phone would then try again, but always at low power because the base was close at hand.

Okay. But as long as (1)

supertsaar (540181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456209)

The radiation is not strong enough to physically cook my brain or other internal organs. Evidence for the induction of cancer by this sort of radiation is not too strong I think. Anyone has a good link to a decent study about that? I believe most studies prove that we are not sure if there is such an effect.

This is sooo wrong! (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456211)

Why is their no jam for my toast? Would it be so damn hard for someone to get me some fucking jam for my god damn toast before it's cold? Is it too much to ask for Strawberry? Damnit! A little strawberry jam for my frickin' toast is all I ask for! For the love of God it's just some fucking jam for my goddamn toast! Is it that big of a deal to get off your fat ass and go to the store to get me some fucking strawberry jam for my goddamn toast! I don't think it's unreasonable at all! Some fucking strawberry jam! That's all I'm asking for!

Timothy - an ass? You decide. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456213)

Has anyone noticed that Timothy is a fucking
arsehole. Seems as though this fool cannot post
a story without some form of inflammatory comment.

If you read this Tim, FUCK YOU. You are the worst
janitor in a room fool of third rate janitors.

FUCK YOU AGAIN

- Penguin Kicka

Yeah! I really don't like the guy.

Electromagnetic radiation - the facts . (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456218)

It's amazing how everyone is suddenly an expert on microwave radiation isn't it ?, and how we all know the results of exposure to raditation because we've seen documentaries about nuclear reactor accidents, and because, we've seen cartoons that show that all you have to do to turn into a big eyed green monster is get exposed to a little radiation.

The media would have us believe that radiation is an evil thing that destroys and mutates anything it touches.

So let's just be a little more scientific here shall we, and find out a bit about what EM radiation really is.

Electro-magnetic radiation is a term referring to the radiated field (ie, moving energy) of all types of electro-magnetic waves, from completely benign low-energy stuff like the radio waves your tv and radio receive, to quite nasty stuff such as gamma radiation. The difference is the amount of energy (and hence frequency) involved, and what happens to matter when exposed to those energies.

A large portion of the EM spectrum contains radiation that is of such a low frequency that the most it could do is impart some heat (okay, maybe a lot of heat) into your body. Anyone who has ever stood outside in the sun (yeah I know, I'm talking to a bunch of IT geeks who have probably never gone outside), will have noticed that it feels quite warm. You may not realise you've just experienced what it's like to be exposed to infrared radiation.

Look around, and bask in the knowledge that without the radiation we call visible light hitting the back of your eyes, you wouldn't be able to see a damn thing out there.

Now go back inside, turn on your TV and enjoy the television signals that are propogating through your house and are being converted into a very weak electrical current by the aerial on your TV, which is then hugely amplified so that you can watch a cartoon about mutant ninja turtles who live in a sewer.

When you fall and break your leg, you get carried off to the local hospital, where they radiate your leg with a high-energy radiation commonly called x-rays. When they do this, they cover the parts of your body they don't want to radiate with layers of lead, since lead is a cheap and dense atom and tends to absorb most things that hit it. This provides a shielding affect, which is good, because x-rays *are* dangerous if you are exposed to them for too long.

The reason that x-rays and gamma rays are dangerous, and radio waves and visible light are not, is that high-energy radiation contains sufficient energy to break the bonds within an atom, and can knock off electrons - creating a charged atom (known as an ion).

To say that another (simpler) way, ionising (ionizing for americans) radition is a dangerous thing to play with, since the cells in your body are not designed to operate well when charged. This is not to say that they will 'mutate' and your skin will turn green. More likely is that those cells will die and if you continue to be exposed to the radiation source, your body will be unable to produce new cells fast enough to replace the dead ones. Organs will shut down and stop functioning, and eventually your body will die from specific failures that I don't need to get into here.

Non-ionising radiation does not contain sufficient energy to break nuclear bonds, and thus is pretty safe to be around (The world would be a boring place without visible light).

Having said that, it's not entirely accurate to say that all non-ionising radition is safe - because it can destroy cells by heating them past the point that they can operate at. Anyone who has stayed out on the beach too long will be well aware of the danger of ultraviolet light, which is a non-ionising form of radiation, and thus does not destroy cells at an atomic level, but simply heats them up and burns them.

Fortunately the human body is capable of dealing with this, and the deeper layers of your skin produce a dark compound that is quite good (but not perfect) at absorbing UV radiation. Most people have seen this happening, and call it a sun tan.

This is not *quite* the same as the infra-red radiation that comes from say an oven or heater - that too can burn your skin, but since it has a different level of energy, and thus frequency, the exact manner that damage occurs.

What may surprise many people is that MICROWAVE radiation (1ghz - 100ghz) is also non-ionising. The damage it can cause is thermal, just like UV, radio, tv, infra-red, and ultra-violet radiation.

Microwave ovens work at 2.4ghz by *heating* whatever it is that you put in it. The reason they are shielded is that the makers don't want to cook the people standing outside the oven. If you were stupid enough to stick your hand in a microwave oven and turn it on, your hand would suffer a similar fate to as if you had put it in a fire or over a bunsen burner.

Incidently, 802.11b wireless networking works at around 2.422ghz - the same freqency that your microwave oven works at, but at a much lower power level, which is why you won't even feel a warm spot on your hand if you stuck it in front of the aerial.

GSM cellphones operate at 980Mhz, 1800Mhz, and 1900Mhz, depending on what type of network you are on. Those frequencies are at the end of the 'radio' part of the EM spectrum and the beginning of the 'microwave' part. Bear in mind that the term 'microwave' is simply referring to the size of the wavelength, and covers frequencies in the range 1Ghz to about 100Ghz.

Don't just take my word for it - check for youself. Google knows all, but I'll give you a few starting points:

There's a nice clear diagram showing where the different energies (types of radiation) fit in to the EM spectrum on nasa's site:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l 1/ emspectrum.html

And there's a good explanation of ionising and non-ionising radiation here:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_ gc i775674,00.html

Understand before you act (1, Redundant)

nsayer (86181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456219)

There may be reasons folks want to jam cell phones. Reducing RF almost certainly wouldn't be one of them. If you start interfering with it, the first thing it's going to do is turn the power up to try and talk over the interference. Congratulations: You have now made the cell phone transmit more RF, never mind the fact that your own jammer emits RF as well.

Cell Phone Jammer (1)

nightflyer000 (541639) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456242)

A Cell Phone Jammer! Great idea. Someone needs to invent one of those so i can buy it.

Something to think about... (4, Interesting)

forgoil (104808) | more than 12 years ago | (#3456246)

Ever seen one of those wireless phones you have at home? So you can run around the house while speaking in it. Got any idea how strong that signal is? How often it transmits signals?

Or what about wireless ethernet for that matter...

We need science, and we need to know what is dangerous and what is not. But these reports, or the reports about the dangers of potato chips, is not especially valid yet. I belive that two independant studies has to be made before you can draw any conclusion, and both of them has to live up to certain scientific standards.

silver linings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3456252)

Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer.

Don't want a jammer. But a way to snatch the phone number of the cute girl I'm sitting next would be much appreciated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...